The EU: IN or OUT?

savings_my_hobby

bigadaj wrote: »

So what happened after the 1950s?

We had immigrants from the commonwealth because we sent our bravest and best to die to two world wars.

Had we not had got involved in the first war, Hitler would never had come to power or perhaps even formed his spiteful views.

savings_my_hobby

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Its not safe at all to say that. Can you back that up with statistics? Why are they a "drain on the tax payer" ? They are healthy young people so they arent using the NHS, they wont in the main have kids so they arent sending their kids to local schools. Where's the subsidy ?

Healthy young people who get pregnant? drink and get into fights?

of course they will have kids AND get a council house AND child tax credits AND enjoy maternity pay. I have seen this happen, also some of them have kids already living in their own country and claim tax credits for them. You could not make it up.

Healthy? One local factory got closed down for several weeks because of an outbreak of TB. you know the disease that was almost eradicated in the UK, needless to say the workforce were exclusively European.

Our cleaner at work is from Latvia, he is 30 and needed time off because of heart problems. He drinks and smokes and judging by his dental health does amphetamines, a lot do. (English do as well)
so yer, Olympic athletes aren't they?

I have not been to my GP in the last 12 years without the room being half full with European immigrants, coughing and spluttering.

On the other hand some Europeans are extremely fit and lovely to talk to because they bothered to learn the language.

buglawton

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

I remember that documentary, I also remember the BBC was heavily criticised for picking people who belong on the Jeremy Kyle show. Those people were an embarrassment to themselves and you will likely find their parents never worked either.
There were always plenty of people to do that type of work, I should know I live in the area.

If we stopped giving them benefits and made crime a non option the unemployed people would be grateful for that type of work.
Although I do believe that you should be paid slightly more than the person to works on a till in Next or wherever because that work is clearly more demanding.

The local youth would lose benefits and complicate their claimant status. The migrants by contrast have no interest in the benefit culture but want to live cheaply in near-free dormitories and remit cash back to their home countries, perhaps to build/buy a house that will cost 20% of the UK equivalent.

Two completely different worlds collide. Makes good TV though.

talexuser

bigadaj wrote: »

The £350 million a week will form an important part of the exit negotiations.

Except it isn't (and never was) 350 mil a week in the first place

Ballard

The NFU are concerned about the future of fruit growing in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/brexit-farm-labour-shortages-fruit-vegetable-harvests-national-farmers-union?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

bigadaj

talexuser wrote: »

Except it isn't (and never was) 350 mil a week in the first place

I think the correct net figure was assumed to be about half that.

Still a massive hole in the European budget that no one else wants to fill, which is a bargaining chip.

Glen_Clark

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

some of them have kids already living in their own country and claim tax credits for them.

They claim benefits from the same country they would pay taxes to. Can't expect Poland to pay their benefits if they are paying their taxes in England. That aside it isn't only immigrants who claim benefits to get housing. For many its the only way to get housed because of the gap between wages and rents.
Benefits have to cover housing costs, wheras wages don't, so benefits may be higher than wages.
For which I blame the Government for its housing market interventions pumping up house prices

talexuser

bigadaj wrote: »

I think the correct net figure was assumed to be about half that.

The 350 million remains a complete lie which ministers stuck with throughout the campaign, but reneged on immediately afterwards. All trace has also now been removed from the vote leave website.

The true figure from the treasury would be to say we "send" 248 million but the cost of the club is around 136 million a week, after agricultural/university/development etc subsidies.

JohnRo

talexuser wrote: »

The 350 million remains a complete lie which ministers stuck with throughout the campaign, but reneged on immediately afterwards. All trace has also now been removed from the vote leave website.

The true figure from the treasury would be to say we "send" 248 million but the cost of the club is around 136 million a week, after agricultural/university/development etc subsidies.

Then there are the unquantifiable benefits of being a privileged member in a free trade area club, the effects of which will become somewhat clearer over the next several years/decades.

savings_my_hobby

Glen_Clark wrote: »

They claim benefits from the same country they would pay taxes to. Can't expect Poland to pay their benefits if they are paying their taxes in England. That aside it isn't only immigrants who claim benefits to get housing. For many its the only way to get housed because of the gap between wages and rents.
Benefits have to cover housing costs, wheras wages don't, so benefits may be higher than wages.
For which I blame the Government for its housing market interventions pumping up house prices

All of this is correct and makes sense, but surely they should not be able to claim benefits for children NOT in the UK, as they currently do.
The point about housing is valid except for the migrants that live in on site accommodation, who most likely do not pay the market rate for rent and most likely still claim tax credits despite earning between 2 and 5 times what they would earn back home.

Why would a massive employer like G's salads employ local British workers when they can claw back rents from salaries off migrant workers?